CESTAT, CHENNAI BENCH

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

v.

SKM Engg. Products Exports (I) Ltd.

P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

FINAL ORDER NO. 1157 TO 1198 of 2006

STAY ORDER NO. 1173 TO 1178 OF 2006

MISC. ORDER NO. 567 TO 608 OF 2006

APPLICATION NOS. 8/COD/16 TO 23,36,37,39,45,47 TO 50,54 TO 56, 59 TO 63,

65 TO 67,69,70,72 TO 74, 78,81,85 TO 87, 90,120 TO 122 & 126 OF 2006

S/SO/35,36,42 TO 45 OF 2006

APPEAL NOS. S/15 TO 22, 28 TO 30, 33,37 TO 43,46 TO 55, 57 TO 60,67

71 TO 73,76,96 TO 99 OF 2006

December 1, 2006

Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded - Assessee had received service of Goods Transport Operators during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 - However of Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India [2006] 4 STT 322 quashed provision of Service Tax Rules, 1994 making recipients of above services liable to pay service tax for said period - Subsequently, provision of Act was amended by Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effects making recipient of such service liable for service tax - Accordingly, demand of service tax was raised against assessee Demand was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) relaying on decision in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 8 STT 295 (New Delhi - CESTAT) wherein it was held that a person receiving such service was not covered by provisions of sections 70 & 73 and that any demand notice issued to such a person by department under section 73 was not maintainable - Whether order of Commissioner (Appeals) was to be sustained - Held, yes [Para 3]